A Comparative Consideration of Argument for God’s Existence from Consciousness: Swinburne and Mullā Ṣadrā

There is an argument for God’s existence from consciousness. The argument was initially formulated by Swinburne in contemporary Western philosophy. He claims that no one has preceded him in formulating the argument, except John Locke who had a vague reference to it. The argument considers the existence of mental phenomena, such as feelings, emotions, intentions, and thoughts—which are scientifically unexplainable and merely admit of subjective explanations—as evidence for God’s existence. Swinburne provides an inductive versions of the argument, which confirms and reinforces the probability of God’s existence. A survey of arguments for God’s existence in Islamic philosophical tradition reveals that Mullā Ṣadra was the first philosopher who argued for God’s existence from rational consciousness. His argument is syllogistic and certainty-conferring. This paper deploys a descriptive-analytic method to consider the two versions of the argument from consciousness for God’s existence in Western and Islamic philosophical traditions, comparing their agreements, distinctions, weaknesses, and strengths.